Clarification: A chart Sunday showing Milwaukee police officer and firefighter disciplinary actions reduced over the past five years failed to differentiate between actions reduced by the Fire and Police Commission after hearings and those negotiated between the department and the city attorney's office. Of 36 actions, 28 were negotiated.

Click to view

Three Milwaukee police officers disciplined by the department after women accused them of on-duty sexual misconduct continue to wear the badge, a Journal Sentinel investigation found.

One of the officers, Scott D. Charles, served a 60-day suspension and has since been promoted to sergeant.

The other two, Reginald L. Hampton and Milford Adams, were fired but reinstated after appealing to the civilian Fire and Police Commission, which has the authority to conduct its own disciplinary investigations and to overturn punishments imposed by the chief.

Recently fired officer Ladmarald Cates - accused of raping a woman after he responded to her 911 call in July - hopes to use the same appeals process to get his job back. Like the other three, he is accused of using his police authority to prey on vulnerable women.

The complaints against the other three date from 1990 to 2004. In Adams' case, a woman said he agreed not to arrest her if she performed a sex act. The other two officers were accused of having inappropriate sexual contact with women in their homes. In all three cases, internal affairs investigators concluded the officers deserved discipline.

After appealing his firing to the commission, Hampton, who was not criminally charged, was suspended for 60 days. Adams, who was charged with felony misconduct in public office but acquitted by a jury, was not disciplined by the commission at all.

Their cases show that without a criminal conviction, officers who are the subject of sexual misconduct complaints deemed credible by the department can keep their jobs - even if the police chief wants them fired.

Carmen Pitre, co-executive director of the Sojourner Family Peace Center, said abusive officers are particularly dangerous to victims. Not only that, they cast a shadow of doubt on the good work done by the rest of the force, she said.

"Police officers have a lot of power in their hands and when they abuse that power, we have to take a very firm stand on that not being acceptable," she said.

Adams and Charles did not return telephone messages. Hampton and Cates did not respond to letters left at their homes. Their attorneys also did not comment on the misconduct allegations.

Michael G. Tobin, who was appointed executive director of the Fire and Police Commission in November 2007, defended the group's work. Its hearings are independent and based on the rule of law, he said.

"Unless you sit through the whole hearing just like a jury would, it's really hard to second-guess what their final finding is, because so many things can happen in the hearing that are unexpected," he said. "They're always trying to do the best thing. There is no ulterior motive involved."

Once disciplinary proceedings against an officer have been completed, the punishment cannot be changed, Tobin said.

That means Chief Edward Flynn, who took office in 2008, has no choice but to live with the earlier results, Flynn said in a statement.

"The decision was made by higher authority that they are competent to be officers," Flynn said. "It's my responsibility to make sure they're properly supervised and are held accountable."

The Journal Sentinel has requested, but not yet received from the Police Department, a list of any investigations into the three officers' conduct that did not result in discipline.

Charge was expected

Charles was hired as a police officer in 1991. Three years later, he was investigated by internal affairs and referred to the district attorney's office after a woman accused him of sexual assault, according to a summary of the investigation obtained under the state open records law.

The woman told police she had been drinking at a few south side taverns until around 1 a.m. Aug. 3, 1994, according to the summary. Charles, driving a squad car, followed her home, she said. The woman told investigators Charles said he planned to arrest her for drunken driving.

"The officer then told her that he wanted to walk with her into her apartment to make sure she lived there and that everything was all right," the summary says.

The woman told investigators she was very intoxicated and may have blacked out. She remembers lying on the floor as the officer performed a sex act, the summary says. Afterward, she scrawled the name and badge number from his uniform on the cover of a magazine. The next day, she told her ex-boyfriend what had happened. He told her to put her clothes into a plastic bag to be used as evidence, which she did.

Charles told investigators he went into the woman's apartment because she told him she had been assaulted by her ex-husband in the past and she wanted him to go inside to be sure she was safe, according to the summary. He said the two sexually touched each other consensually and the woman was not unconscious at any point, the summary says.

The investigator concluded that Charles went into the woman's apartment "under the guise of ensuring her safety . . . and did have an act of sexual contact with her," according to the summary.

The Journal Sentinel has learned the identity of the woman but could not locate her. The newspaper does not name victims of sexual assault.

An internal affairs report dated March 22, 1995, says: "As of the date of this report a charge of misconduct in public office is pending, but expected to be issued, by the district attorney's office."

But it was not.

The summary does not contain an explanation of why Charles was not charged. The district attorney's records of the incident no longer exist because of a county policy that calls for destruction of files in uncharged cases after 10 years, Deputy District Attorney James J. Martin wrote in response to an open records request by the newspaper.

E. Michael McCann, who was district attorney at the time, did not return telephone calls.

Charles was suspended for 60 days for "failing to conform and abide by all the criminal laws of the state of Wisconsin and the ordinances of the City of Milwaukee" and for "idling and loafing while on duty," according to his personnel record. He avoided being fired by receiving satisfactory monthly reports from his supervisor for a year, his personnel record shows.

"Idling and loafing" is the same count used to punish officers for sleeping on the job. It encompasses any on-duty behavior not related to police business.

In 2000, in a different incident, Charles was disciplined for filing a false official report, failing to appear in court and failing to obey an order by a superior officer, according to his personnel record.

He was promoted to sergeant in 2002. He works as a night shift supervisor in District 1.

2 separate accusations

Another officer avoided criminal prosecution and removal from the force after two different women accused him of sexual assault within two years.

Reginald Hampton's first accuser said she met him when he responded to a domestic violence call involving her roommate and uncle, according to a summary of the internal affairs investigation. The two became friends and had consensual sex once, the woman told investigators. The woman said Hampton came to her apartment while he was on duty about seven times over a six-month period.

Around 11 p.m. Jan. 1, 1990, Hampton went to the woman's apartment in his police uniform, she told investigators. She allowed him to handcuff her arms behind her back. She allowed him to caress and kiss her, but told him she did not want to have sex because she was menstruating, according to the summary.

It goes on to say that according to the woman, Hampton placed her in a prone position and lifted her underwear. The remaining details of what occurred were redacted from the records provided to the Journal Sentinel. Afterward, the woman told the officer "he was sick," and she "began to cry hysterically," according to the records. She also went to the hospital.

Hampton told investigators the two had consensual sex previously. On the date in question, Hampton told investigators the woman did not cry "or act distressed in his presence," according to records. He denied assaulting her.

After the newspaper dropped off a letter seeking an interview at the woman's home in January, her mother called a reporter. The woman did not want to talk because she was still traumatized by the incident, her mother said.

Then-Assistant District Attorney John DiMotto did not charge Hampton with a crime because there was no evidence to corroborate the woman's story, the two had a prior sexual relationship and Hampton passed a lie-detector test, according to the internal affairs summary.

Because no charges were issued and because Hampton denied any involvement in a sexual assault, "the scope of the internal investigation was limited to the alleged on-duty act of consensual sexual intercourse," which occurred earlier, and the alleged on-duty visits to the woman's apartment "without a legitimate police purpose," the records say.

But because the woman could not detail the specific dates and times of those visits, and because Hampton told investigators he never went to her apartment while he was working, investigators ruled that complaint unsubstantiated, according to the summary.

Hampton admitted he had consensual sex with the woman earlier but said he was off-duty at the time. Because he was married and there is a state law against adultery, internal investigators concluded he violated a department policy against breaking the law.

The summary does not indicate whether he was referred to the district attorney's office on that charge, which is almost never prosecuted. He was not criminally charged. His personnel record also shows no departmental discipline in connection with the incident.

Less than two years later, internal affairs investigators again referred Hampton to the district attorney's office, this time for possible second-degree sexual assault charges, according to a summary of the investigation. Then-Assistant District Attorney Audrey Renschen did not file charges because the woman wanted Hampton disciplined by the department rather than criminally prosecuted, the summary says.

The Journal Sentinel was unable to determine the woman's identity, which was redacted from the summary.

The woman and Hampton met when she went to the District 7 station to file a complaint against her boyfriend on Oct. 27, 1991, she told investigators. After taking the report, Hampton followed her to her mother's house in his squad car and walked her to the door, the summary says. About an hour later, around 3 a.m., he rang the doorbell.

"He told her he was checking the area and just wanted to make sure she was all right," the summary says.

The woman said Hampton called again the next evening, and again rang the doorbell in the middle of the night. This time, she let him in and he kissed her, the summary says. He returned about four more times that night. He called again the next evening, and then rang the doorbell around 1:30 a.m.

If Hampton had not been a police officer, she never would have let him into the house, she told investigators.

The woman told investigators Hampton performed oral sex on her even though she pushed him away and told him "no." Eventually, she stopped pushing him and "went with the flow," the summary says.

"She stated she felt safe, but didn't want him to do what he did and that she didn't scream when it was going on because she didn't want her family to see what was happening," the summary says.

Shortly after the encounter, the woman moved. She did not tell Hampton her new address, yet about six weeks later, he showed up there, she told investigators. After that, her boyfriend called police and she filed the sexual assault complaint.

Hampton told investigators he never kissed the woman, never had sexual contact with her and never assaulted her, according to the summary. He denied being at her house the day she said the assault occurred. He knocked on the door of her new home by coincidence because he was trying to figure out who had been driving a yellow Cadillac parked in the back, he told investigators.

The woman's boyfriend told police he owned the Cadillac but he always parked in the garage.

"(There is) ample circumstantial evidence which leads one to conclude officer Hampton was untruthful in several of his responses during this investigation," the summary says. "This untruthfulness clearly destroys officer Hampton's credibility, consequently, there is no reason to believe his denial of the allegations made by (the woman)."

The investigator concluded that Hampton had nonconsensual sexual contact with the woman, visited her home for no apparent police purpose, and failed to maintain adequate documentation in his memo books, according to the summary. Then-Chief Philip Arreola fired Hampton.

The punishment was overturned by the Fire and Police Commission, which instead imposed a 60-day suspension, according to Hampton's personnel record.

Hampton has been disciplined once since he was reinstated in June 1993. In 2005, he received an official reprimand for using department stationery for personal correspondence.

He works the day shift in court administration, according to his personnel record.

All discipline rescinded

The commission also overturned the firing of another police officer, Milford Adams, who was accused of allowing a woman to trade a sex act for her freedom. After a jury found Adams not guilty at a criminal trial, the commission rescinded all internal discipline against him, leaving him with a clean employment record.

The criminal case against Adams began with an anonymous call to internal affairs around 5 a.m. July 23, 2004, according to an internal complaint issued by then-Chief Nannette Hegerty. The caller, who was never identified, said a police officer and a woman were engaged in sexual activity in an unmarked squad car, according to a summary of the internal investigation. The caller also provided the license plate number. The plates came back to Adams' car. Records showed Adams had run a check on a woman around the same time, learning there was a warrant out for her arrest on a probation violation. She also had a history of drug and prostitution arrests.

The woman told authorities Adams stopped her while she was walking near a convenience store at S. 11th St. and W. Greenfield Ave. He searched her by untucking her shirt and telling her to bend over, according to a criminal complaint. He found a crack pipe hidden in the back of her underwear.

When the woman tried to talk her way out of being arrested, Adams reclined the car seat and told her, "You know what to do," according a transcript of her testimony in the criminal case.

"He's an officer with a gun," she testified. "I assumed it was safer for me to do what he wanted me to do than not. I could tell this wasn't exactly a cut and dry arrest."

After she touched him sexually, he let her go, she said.

"He let me out the door and he drove off," she testified. "I went inside the Open Pantry, and I cried and hyperventilated, and tried to drink a soda and got my wits about me and waited about a half an hour and then I left."

During an interview with internal investigators, Adams denied having sexual contact with the woman, the summary says.

"He released her on the condition that she give him information on drug houses in the future," the summary says. "He later threw the crack pipe in the Dumpster at District 2."

Internal investigators deemed the woman credible, and the district attorney's office agreed. Prosecutors initially charged Adams in March 2005 with encouraging a violation of probation, a misdemeanor. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Kevin Martens granted a defense motion to dismiss the charge because simply failing to arrest someone wanted on a probation violation does not constitute encouraging the violation, court records show.

Authorities worked to build a better case, and in January 2007 prosecutors issued a second criminal complaint regarding the same incident. This time, they charged Adams with felony misconduct in public office and three misdemeanors: disorderly conduct, lewd and lascivious behavior, and encouraging a probation violation, according to court records. Prosecutors dismissed the charge of lewd and lascivious behavior prior to trial. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge William Brash granted a defense motion to dismiss the charge of encouraging a probation violation.

A jury acquitted Adams on the other two charges in January 2008.

Kent Lovern, chief deputy district attorney, did not respond to questions about the case.

Both Adams and the woman testified before the Fire and Police Commission seven months later, according to commission documents. The hearing focused on whether Adams violated the department rule against violating state law and whether he mistreated the woman.

"Given (the woman's) extensive criminal history and her record of inconsistent and less than credible testimony in this and other forums, we find her uncorroborated testimony to be insufficient to serve as a basis for a finding of fact that rule violations were committed," the commission's decision says.

The commission also found that whether to arrest the woman was within Adams' discretion, and not doing so was not a violation of department rules.

The woman is identified in court records, but the Journal Sentinel was unable to locate her.

Adams works the night shift in District 1, according to his personnel record.

'Just cause' for firing?

Most union workers, including Milwaukee police officers, can be fired or otherwise disciplined only for "just cause," according to Paul Secunda, an associate professor at the Marquette University Law School who specializes in labor law.

Breaking the law may or may not qualify, depending on the circumstances. The infractions that most often qualify for discipline or dismissal under the "good cause" standard include chronic lateness, absenteeism and insubordination, Secunda said.

On the other hand, nonunion workers, who make up the majority of the private sector, are employed at will, which means they can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all, Secunda said.

For Milwaukee police officers, it is up to the Fire and Police Commission to determine whether the "just cause" standard has been met. Commissioners conduct their own investigation, but they also may consider what happened in the internal affairs investigation, said Tobin, the executive director.

Because Adams was found not guilty in criminal court, it would have been difficult for the commission to conclude he broke the law, Tobin said.

Perhaps discipline would have been upheld if Hegerty, who was chief at the time, had chosen to punish Adams for some other rule violation, Tobin said.

Although federal authorities are investigating Cates for potential crimes, Flynn fired him for lying and for idling and loafing, not for breaking the law. This means the commission could uphold the punishment even if Cates is not criminally charged, or if he is charged and acquitted.

Coming Monday

New information is revealed about past sexual misconduct complaints against fired Milwaukee Police Officer Ladmarald Cates, who is under federal investigation after a woman accused him of raping her in the wake of a July 911 call.